Thursday, January 31, 2008

John Kerry was voted the most liberal senator in 2003 and now Obama has been voted the most liberal of 2007...which doesn't really bode well for him. With such liberal people being picked by the Democratic party, this shows just how extreme and uncompromising the party has become. If a party ever wants to win, the smartest thing they can do is at least pick a candidate that is remotely moderate. In doing so, the party can pick up more of the independent votes that the party needs to win. Picking the most extreme candidate of the bunch is hardly a good strategy to win, and until the Democratic party learns that they will not win another presidential election. Extremists do not compromise, and people soon realize that once extreme people get into office.

There are several possible reasons that people don't vote. First, in this election Democrats have been coming out in huge numbers compared to Republicans. I think much of this is to do with the candidates involved. On the Democratic side, voters only have 2 real candidates to pick from, so they are able to feel more strongly about a certain person when there are only two people to choose from. On the Republican side, there are several candidates to choose from and many people are undecided about which candidate best reflects their beliefs. Many voters are content to let the party pick the presidential nominee and then vote in the presidential election instead of the primaries.

What about election turnout in general? Why is it so low in America? It's strange that we have a lower voter turnout in the last presidential election than Iraq did in it's elections. I think the biggest thing is that most of the population is largely apathetic toward politics. Why? I think it's mainly because life in our country is so good. People vote more when they are ticked off and dissatisfied with their lives. Low voter turnout tells me that people, for the most part, are satisfied with their lives and don't feel they have to pay so much attention to politics.

Monday, January 28, 2008

One little-stated fact that the sensationalist/drama-loving media has not informed us about is the improvements in Iraq. Stories like this one have been very few and far between in recent months. More troops, along with a new strategy of embedding with friendly Iraqis has led to dramatic improvement in Iraq...something we have heard little, if anything, about.

Troop casualties are at their lowest point since the original invasion of Iraq, and I think it's very important to credit General Petraeus for turning Iraq around from a hopeless quagmire of a situation to a possible success story in the Middle East and for freedom in general.

Friday, January 25, 2008

As serious as politics are, I love some of the humor that comes out of campaigns as well, things like Al Gore inventing the calculator as well as the internet and so forth. Mitt Romeny had a great remark when he said: "The idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do is something I can’t imagine." And he probably has a hilariously good point. If Bill Clinton, as the leader of the free world and all the work that entails, participated in naughty extra-curricular activities, what's going to happen if his wife is off doing all the hard work and he gets to kick back and "relax"? Granted, the first person does a lot of work, but when compared to the president? Not a ton of work or pressure, that's for sure.

As funny as this story is, it seemed more attention was given to this stuff than what the candidates actually stated about the campaign. The main point of the article was that Hillary Clinton was going to jack up taxes and that she's weak on Iraq; things I knew anyway. The actual story did not give any more details than the headline already stated and resorted to talking about the funny lines the politicians had. There were few actual issues and issue debates reported in this article, which is a shame. I missed the debate, and would have liked to known more information aside from hilarious political sniping, as funny as it is.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Race has been being talked about a lot lately in the Democratic presidential race. Both Clinton and Obama are fighting for the "Black Vote", as most of the media always puts it. I think it's very ironic how the media keeps saying how racial discrimination is still a problem in America, yet they are one of the most prominent sources of racial discrimination. Two candidates are fighting for votes from a group of people based on the color of their skin. Am I the only one that sees the irony of this? When are we going to see people as people and not make skin color an issue at all? When they ask me on standardized tests and forms for my race, I fill in the "prefer not to disclose" bubble, because race just doesn't matter!

I think it's also quite ironic how the Democratic party is the "party of equality and civil rights", yet they are fighting for the "black vote", or in other words whoever gives more to the African American community (race), they receive these votes. How is this equality? When a candidate promises more benefits from affirmative action and things like that which give special benefits based on one's race or gender, how does that work towards equality? All people are the same, so they should be treated that way.

I don't care if someone is black or white, male or female, rich or poor, gay or straight, fat or skinny, blond or redhead, young or old. I care about the person. Disadvantaged neighborhoods shouldn't be looked at as "mostly African American", they should be looked at as strictly disadvantaged and helped out accordingly...why is race an issue? The issue is the problems these people are facing, not the color of their skin. A poor person is a poor person, regardless of color.

Fighting for "black votes" sends a dangerous message: that one is still looked at for the color of their skin, and I think our society would get along much better if race became less of an issue in campaigns. I don't see why Republicans are seen as the party that "hates black people", when all it really pushes for is giving everyone the same treatment, regardless of color. Sure there are some actual racist Republicans, but there are plenty racist Democrats as well. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamt of a "colorblind society", and how can we have that as we apply "black" and "white" and "red" and "yellow" to so many situations?